https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the-smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198/

As defined by Merriam-Webster, a paradigm shift is, “an important change that happens when the usual way of thinking about or doing something is replaced by a new and different way” (Merriam-Webster). I believe that The Atlantic’s article Have Smartphones Destroyed  A Generation is one of the best definitions of such societal shifts.

When I was growing up, I would spend the majority of my time outside playing with my friends. Each day as school ended, and I had finished my homework, my friends and I would all bike to each others homes and spend hours on each other’s trampoline. Every single day. Nowadays, this is not true. The featured girl in the article states that the majority of her time, specifically summer when she has the most free time, is spent inside on her phone, and that constitutes her social life. Social media has entirely taken over the lives of young people, changing practically every aspect of their lives. This is why the article discusses a paradigm shift. I am a direct witness to it.

Based on the Merriam-Webster definition, I believe that a paradigm shift must be a change that affects the entirety of one’s life, and The Atlantic article shows just how smartphones have affected so many areas of an adolescents upbringing. First, it includes data that shows how in 2012, when the number of Americans who owned iPhones passed 50%, serious teen behavior and emotional shifts occurred. Teen depression and suicide have skyrocketed since this point, and it is due to the isolating and belittling nature of social media.

The article also states how even slight differences in language choice indicate a paradigm shift between the millennials and iGen (current adolescents). Instead of referring to a crush as someone that you “like,” the article states how “talking” has become the new word. People use this when discussing couples who have gone on a multiple dates and act as if they are together, but have not officially labeled themselves as boyfriend and girlfriend.

The article mainly upholds the disposition that this specific paradigm shift has only harmed our society, but they do state that because teens are becoming bigger home-bodies, they are having less sex at an early age. This has caused the teen pregnancy rate to decrease by 67% from 1991 to 2016. Though modern-day teenagers are not developing the needed social skills due to social media, at least they are making fewer bad choices that would have lifelong effects, like having a baby.

Overall, the article details many reasons as to how our smartphones and social media usage have completely changed the way of life for young people, thus defining it as a paradigm shift.

Video by New York Times

I came to my second artifact for my rhetorical analysis essay in a very unorthodox way. During our first peer review for our speeches, one of my classmates was giving me some feedback, and they stated that my artifact felt very much like the language of founding fathers. It was not until later that day when her words made me think of “The Declaration of Independence.” My original artifact was the speech the company of Hamilton delivered when Mike Pence came to see the show, and their speech deals with similar topics of oppression and wanting their government to acknowledge their existence. So, it just felt right to compare two artifacts dealing with similar topics.   

Image by Library of Congress

As we learn throughout our history courses, “The Declaration of Independence” was signed on July 4th, 1776 with the intentions of separating the American Colonies from the British government. Throughout the document, the founding fathers argue that the British government has at every turn curtailed the rights of their people, and they therefore deserve freedom from this treatment. The writers of the Declaration use very accusatory, harsh language to communicate this message. They create a distinct divide between the British government and the people of the colonies in the way they use certain pronouns. They use “He” when describing the institutions that have oppressed them, and “we” when discussing the people who have been affected by this treatment.

I decided to choose this as my artifact for comparison for many reasons: however, the main reason was that I wanted to compare the Hamilton speech to an artifact that felt as if it is somehow connected. The musical focuses on the events both leading up to and following the ratification of “The Declaration of Independence,” so I of course wanted to draw similarities and differences between artifacts that are so intertwined with each other. I also loved how both artifacts seem very similar in their intentions. Both discourses communicate the message that their people are suffering, or will soon suffer from, oppression. They then differentiate in how they respond to that treatment. As discussed, “The Declaration of Independence” then begins to accuse the British government, where the Hamilton speech does the opposite. They politely ask Mike Pence to acknowledge their existence as marginalized people, and ask for space in our democracy. These subtle differences in language define their different goals. I found it fascinating how slight differences in language can completely change the whole tone of a piece of literature. I hope to explore this further in the essay.

Now, more than ever, our country is polarized by our political beliefs. Quite often it feels as if each person has to belong to one singular party and cannot agree with any ideas put forth by the other. And if you do disagree with someone, it causes mass Facebook arguments or huge confrontations on the street. Just this past Friday I witnessed a group of people screaming at each other because someone was protesting on campus. Because our society has taken a turn towards this mentality, bumper stickers like pictured above have come into our world. The advertisement attempts to use a logical appeal to describe “liberal logic,” but it fails to do so because its statements are based on fallacies.

The main issue with the bumper sticker is that it presupposes all immigrants are terrorists, and therefore, liberals think terrorists have rights because most liberals are pro-immigration. These two statements do not match up. Some liberals may support non-threatening immigrants, who are trying to leave their oppressive lives, yet some may not. The bumper sticker implies that all liberals have the same ideologies, when that just may not be true. Their statements are fallacies because they hastily generalize all people of a specific group into having the same beliefs and characteristics. Also, anti-immigration supporters cannot refrain from hastily generalizing all immigrants as some form of terrorists, when most of them just want a better life for their families. Entire nationalities are blacklisted from people’s hearts because a few people of this specific descent have caused acts of terrorism. It is also strange because according to studies from The Huffington Post, caucasian men are a larger threat than Muslims (the so called terrorists mentioned in this picture) (Grossman, 2017). So, it is honestly comical that people actually remark that liberals support terrorists, let alone state that they have rights. I am almost positive that no person genuinely feels as if terrorists deserve the rights of an everyday person. This bumper sticker just uses quick statements to grab the attention of people who pass it, but their statements refuse to acknowledge facts and reasoning.  

The other issue with this car advertisement is that it somehow presupposes the ideology that christians are at a disadvantage in this society, and that liberals are not christians. This country established itself for reasons of religious freedom, whether practicing or not. So, for this bumper sticker to state that liberals do not want christians to have rights is just incorrect, because most of the time they just want the religious freedom to not have christian ideals forced onto them. For example, any person that believes abortion should be outlawed in this country because “only god can take or give life”  infringes on other people’s right to religious freedom. Each person has the right to their beliefs, and therefore the right to make their own decisions in their personal life, not in our government. Plus I know many christians who support the liberal ideals, and I would find anyone hard-pressed to debate that they do not believe in their own rights.

Many people use quick, flashy statements as a way to grab people’s attention to communicate their message, but it is our responsibility to use logical reasoning to sift through these statements, and realize that they are built on no factual evidence. If we continue to do this, our democracy will survive. Who knows what will happen without it.  

Video by NYTimes

On November 18th, less than two weeks after Donald Trump and Mike Pence won the general election, Pence visited the cast of Hamilton at the Richard Rodgers Theatre. The show, a retelling of history through a modern lens of hip hop music, features a diverse cast of all creeds: whether this is sexual orientation, gender identity, or ethnicity. The show tries to shed light on marginalized people, and give them a chance to reclaim a history that they may have believed did not belong to them. The ideologies of the Trump and Pence administration do not align with the ideals of the show; and therefore, the cast felt as if they needed to address Pence when he visited. The use of logos and pathos in the speech creates a divide between the cast and Pence, which then makes the message more urgent.

Now before actor Brandon Victor Dixon can begin to speak and try to address Pence in a compelling manner, the tension and high-stakes of the situation already imply the underlying urgent message. The Hamilton cast is taking their bows, and they only have around two minutes before they know Mike Pence will be escorted out by his security. They therefore knew they needed to be articulate, direct, and fast in their delivery of this message. Literal time constraints existed over how they were able to deliver their message, so therefore, it cannot be argued that urgency did not exist.

Regardless of the time constraint, Dixon and the company of Hamilton rely on logos as a huge way of communicating their message, and establishing urgency, because it seems more logical to have people who are actually oppressed communicate a message of injustice. If you look at the entire cast as they hold hands on the edge of the stage, there are people of all different ethnicities. Black, latinx, caucasian, and more, yet the company deliberately chose to use Mr. Dixon as the spokesman of their message. Not that in any way I am trying to downgrade anyone’s oppression, but maybe a white man in the company is not the ideal deliverer of the message. Having a black man, a person that has been in the news of recent for being marginalized and unlawfully killed, seems more logical than someone who does not have to face oppression everyday just by the way they look. By logically choosing the person to deliver the speech, the audience is then more likely to give into Dixon’s use of pathos.

Throughout the speech, Dixon uses pronouns such as we, them, and our to express a commonality between the cast and the audience, and to then unite them over their fear of the current administration. By doing this, he reminds the audience that all people are sharing in their fears, instead of isolating himself and the cast as the only people being affected by the actions of our then-upcoming government. Reminding everyone that their fears are valid and shared by many only motivates them to take action in addressing them. If the speech lacked this emotional appeal, it would only upset the audience even more and make them feel as if their should-be-allies are not acknowledging that they too are scared.

Disregarding my political beliefs and agreement with the cast of Hamilton, I am motivated by the speech, and their ability to unite the audience in expressing their fear. Even though I can only empathize with race issues, because I have never been directly affected, I felt included in Dixon’s speech, and felt like I was brought into discussion as someone who fears what the Trump administration has done and will continue to do. 

Image by NBC News

There’s nothing I hate more than elitism. I resent anyone who thinks they are superior because they wear more expensive clothes, drive expensive cars, and flaunt their wealth. I believe the entire Kardashian/Jenner family are the prime example of elitism and unnecessary feelings of superiority. So, before I even sat down to watch Kendall Jenner’s Pepsi ad, I knew I would react very harshly.

Image by US Weekly

The advertisement begins with some sort of protest, mimicking the ones that have been going on for the past year and a half, while Ms. Jenner, on the sidelines, models in a fake, blonde wig. At first she seems to have no acknowledgement of what is going on in her surroundings, but then she suddenly peeks out of her modeling bubble to see what is happening. At the same time, a woman of Islam decent stands off to the side using her camera to take pics of the protest. Near the end of the ad, Ms. Jenner finally pulls off her wig, wipes away her lipstick, and joins the march to hand one of the police officer’s a Pepsi. This causes both him and the entire crowd to burst into excitement and drop the serious tone, making the audience wonder how Ms. Jenner and Pepsi have resolved all issues of race, diversity, and more that the march stands for. Pepsi and Ms. Jenner’s advertisement completely undercuts the serious nature of marches, and downgrades the rights and attention that they have been fighting for since January 2017.

The advertisement’s main issue is that it somehow thinks that Pepsi Cola can fix our political climate and solve our ever-present race issues. Throughout the past year and a half, the visibility and rights of minorities have seriously gone into question. Whether this means talk of repealing gay marriage, terminating DACA, or our government ignoring white-nationalist, hate groups who have spewed their racist ideologies to the masses. The protests pictured in this advertisement are a pushback to these issues, and are a mostly civilized way of combating our government’s ignorance. So, to use these protests as a way to push a product is just offensive. Pepsi is practically saying their product causes escapism, and escapism from these issues does not and cannot exist. Groups of people live in fear every single day because their lives and the lives of their loved ones are threatened. A sip of Pepsi Cola will never be able to wash that fear away.

Image By Wired

The advertisement also undercuts the work of these protests by using Ms. Kendall Jenner as the “deliverer” of the special Pepsi-potion that solves racism. Ms. Jenner is a woman of extreme privilege who will never face the majority of issues that these protests are fighting for. So, having her deliver the Pepsi to the police officer creates some kind of notion that only people of privilege are able to save us, not the people who are actually threatened. As mentioned earlier, the advertisement also follows a woman of what seems to be Islam heritage who is a photographer. Why could she not deliver the Pepsi and try to put an end to these issues? Instead she is a photographer who will probably work behind the scenes for Ms. Jenner, and then not receive nearly as much credit. Protests are a peaceful way of fighting for visibility for marginalized people, yet the advertisement does the exact opposite: gives the visibility to a woman who has been in the spotlight since her parents gave birth to her.

Image by Huffington Post

The advertisement’s “parting words” to its audience also undercut the work of the protestors, and are another reason to never drink the beverage again. After the Pepsi somehow wipes away all of the protestor’s fears, the lines “LIVE BOLDER, LIVE LOUDER” appear underneath a visual of the protestors strutting forward, smirking. Are the protests already not bold enough? Are these marginalized people not living loud enough to make themselves visible? People have been murdered in the act of peacefully resisting our government, and yet, Pepsi Cola seems to have forgotten all about it.

This advertisement is an embarrassment to the American culture, and, frankly, makes me resent being a white man. This advertisement, and the idiocy behind, once again reminds our nation of its need to be more empathetic. We need to care less about going to any means to advertise a drink, and more about people in our lives who are of different creed, and allowing them to live just as freely as us. If we allow more space in our day to be civic, and support those who are marginalized, these poor advertisements would not exist because we would no longer need to protest.